Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> iito retire soon, and may use that area for miscellaneous hobbies. He stated he was not interested in <br /> mechanic or heavy carpentry work, and this would not turn into a situation that might become a part- <br /> time job in his yard, or anything of that nature. He stated he believed the addition would be a definite <br /> asset to the neighborhood and to his property. <br /> Mr.Mackeben stated the proposed addition would be an area approximately our festgOde by twenty <br /> feet long, and would not be much larger than that allowed bythe Code. =z-x,_;gained the rooflines <br /> p. <br /> would match the rest of the house. <br /> Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant would have,;io remove re `.<: : ? back oftfe <br /> garage. Mr.Mackeben stated he would, adding that hewould prefe l dt to dotaf 'his, ''Ince, ere <br /> were many more oak trees on the property. He expressed is a., r ;ation to the Commissioners for <br /> taking the time to drive by the property and view the sit •.;e _ <br /> �� dl `. °'»that this showed interest on their <br /> part. .:. .:,, ., s#;. <br /> Chairperson Peterson noted a two-foot jog in the proposed 04.00191 of this addition, which <br /> indicates the garage setback five feet from the property3 angling b441.4m0 feet. Mr. Mackeben <br /> stated this was in consideration of aesthetics. Hee l n ' ':;would pre ent the appearance of one <br /> longline, and there was no other reason for oin this,.***"ed" <br /> g �°4**ied t�%e addition would be 20 feet <br /> long, and the existing garage is 24 feet, t erefore, t `e entire e'rt(Obarituld go back 44 feet into the <br /> property as a straight line. He stated he felt •if thi l ne wasiiiiialtd, the structure would be more <br /> 11 attractive. ' <br /> 1 f <br /> Allo, r <br /> tif <br /> As <br /> Chairperson Peterson inquired if ttroofline.oe addition would match the roofline of the garage. <br /> '�` `;.,` : > lower it foot, depending upon the <br /> Macke stated he belie `t't would � t� r .: �°;;they mayap g p <br /> contractor's€ mmenda i, terms of w t wt uld look best. <br /> Viaifaati, 1.1106, <br /> Chairperson ' it ::�.:>:::; by property. q pp <br /> �$<�t: . �::�7. .omment ;,:..� �;�dalso driven theHe inquired if the applicant <br /> would be adding t _ slab at h s me'grade. Mr. Mackeben stated this was correct. <br /> Commis inner Miller ilibfrAikere would be doors on the addition. Mr. Mackeben stated there <br /> would•,doors on the Iron.. , ae <br /> ; k of the addition, to provide a drive through in the backyard, to <br /> g <br /> alto or access of his blawnmowers. <br /> Ohteerson Petersonated the proposal appeared to be very good, and he could not see any <br /> mito, with it. ttimissioner Kaden stated he could see no reason the proposal should not go <br /> �"� p P <br /> riatir I' <br /> ::Mi The had driven by the property and thought it would be attractive. He added he <br /> ' 4 $0 ' <br /> . : <>t would be visible at all from the street, particularly with the proposed jog. <br /> Mr. Mackeben stated this was correct, adding it would not be visible to the neighboring properties <br /> either. He reiterated he believed it would improve the property. He commented he had personally <br /> contacted all of the neighbors on his street, and they have indicated they are in favor of the proposal. <br /> He stated, had this not been the case, he would not have pursued it. <br />